Riverside County Supervisor Bob Buster

BY JEFF HORSEMAN
STAFF WRITER
jhorseman@pe.com

Published: 17 May 2012 08:27 PM

It’s easy to see who Riverside County’s public employee unions want for First District county supervisor.

They’re knocking on doors, offering endorsements and spending thousands of dollars to help Mike Soubirous oust incumbent Bob Buster in the June 5 primary. Assemblyman Kevin Jeffries, is the third candidate, setting the stage for a possible two-man runoff in November.

Soubirous, who retired last year after 29 years with the California Highway Patrol, counts heavily on unions to fill his campaign coffers.

Of the almost $255,000 in donations he received between November 2011 and March, 98.8 percent came from labor, campaign finance records show. The Riverside Sheriff’s Association alone gave him two checks for $100,000 each.

Soubirous, 54, defends his union support.

“If anything, I’m honored to represent hard-working county employees that give us many years of their lives,” said Soubirous, whose wife, Linda, had union backing in her unsuccessful 2004 supervisor campaign against Buster.

All three candidates are well-funded. Campaign finance reports for January through March showed each had at least $200,000 in reserve.

Buster, a 67-year-old citrus farmer and the county’s longest-tenured supervisor – first elected in 1993 – said unions are targeting him because he supported much-needed reforms to the county’s pension system.

The unions “enjoyed more than 10 years of great gains to the point where they became a little arrogant and they didn’t really understand how severe the situation is for this county,” he said.

Jeffries, 51, R-Lake Elsinore, hopes his record in Sacramento and endorsements by business and taxpayer groups will carry the day. The property owner/manager said he turned down a state Senate run because “local government is where my heart is.”

The trio is competing for the right to represent 433,000 people in a district encompassing most of Riverside, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake and Wildomar. Each of the five supervisors earns $143,031 annually and are entitled to a $550-a-month car allowance, pensions, health insurance and other benefits.

The First District race will be a test of unions’ ability to sway the electorate, said Shaun Bowler, a UC Riverside political science professor.

Even though the county is politically conservative, public safety unions have avoided voters’ scorn out of respect for police and firefighters, Bowler said. “The more the sheriff’s and some of the unions are open and politically active, the less special they’re seen,” he said. “That’s the risk they’re taking.”

Pension showdown

The county’s two largest unions, Laborers’ International Union of North America Local 777 and Service Employees International Union Local 721, represent more than 12,000 of the county’s 17,700 or so employees. The Riverside Sheriff’s Association has about 2,500 members.

Buster, a former Riverside City Council member, used to get along with unions. LIUNA gave him $5,500 from 2007 to 2009, records show.

Relations soured in 2004, when the sheriff’s union issued a no-confidence vote in Buster, partly to protest low staffing levels. Association President Robert Masson declined to comment.

Tensions rose in 2010 and 2011, when the county faced an $800 million shortfall to cover $4.5 billion worth of pension obligations over 30 years.

Buster and other supervisors called for lower pension benefits for new hires. Union members protested the move and complained Buster was vilifying them.

The sheriff’s union and supervisors accused each other of spreading falsehoods during the 2010 campaign for dueling pension ballot measures. Measure L, backed by the union, would have required voter approval to cut public safety pensions. Measure M, supported by supervisors, authorized the board to cut those benefits.

Measure M got more yes votes than Measure L in 2010. Buster spent his campaign dollars to back Measure M.

In separate talks, the unions and county have reached deals that call for lesser pensions for new employees and increased pension contributions by current workers. In exchange, the county agreed to pay raises.

‘Fresh approach’

SEIU Local 721 President Bob Schoonover said his union is “just looking really for a fresh approach and new ideas and we think Mike Soubirous … is a step in the right direction for us,” he said.

In an e-mail, LIUNA Business Manager Stephen Switzer wrote that Buster is more interested in demonizing union members than finding real solutions. The average LIUNA member’s pension is less than $19,000 a year, while Buster will enjoy an annual pension exceeding $100,000, he wrote.

The annual county portion of Buster’s pension could reach $110,340 by Dec. 31, 2016, if he is re-elected, according to county records. Buster also will receive credit in the state pension system for his Riverside council time and military service.

Buster called talk about his pension “really irrelevant” and “rhetoric.” He noted that Soubirous, who retired as an acting commander, draws a public pension worth nearly $122,000 a year before taxes.

Soubirous said he took the pension terms and conditions offered at the time.

To read entire story, click here.

By Ed Mendel
Thursday, May 17, 2012

The CalPERS board yesterday raised the annual state payment for state worker pensions $213 million to a total of $3.7 billion, rejecting Gov. Brown’s request for a bigger increase to avoid a “loan” costing “$145.9 million over the next 20 years.”

Unions asked the board to spread out higher pension costs mainly caused by a lower investment earnings forecast. Paying part of the new rate over two decades, instead of the full amount now, makes an extra $149 million available for worker pay and other programs next fiscal year.

Although the amount of money may be relatively small, compared to the $16 billion state budget deficit revealed this week, the issue is the big one facing public pensions.

Like former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who also unsuccessfully urged CalPERS to adopt higher state rates, Brown is asking the Legislature to enact cost-cutting pension reforms.

Painful increases in annual employer pension costs might increase public pressure for pension reform. But paying more now to avoid higher costs later also reflects the view that pensions are seriously underfunded.

Most pension funds expect to get about two-thirds of their revenue from investment earnings, not annual employer or employee contributions, and critics say the earnings forecasts are too optimistic.

Alarm grew when a deep economic recession, and a stock market crash in 2008, punched a big hole in pension investment funds. The CalPERS investment portfolio, still well below its peak of $260 million in 2007, was valued at $229.4 billion Tuesday.

CalPERS state worker plans were on average 70 percent funded last June 30 with an “unfunded liability” of $38.5 billion. That’s the shortfall in projected assets needed to pay for pensions over the next 30 years.

The state has a much larger debt for retiree health care promised current state workers over the next 30 years — $62 billion according to an actuarial report done for state Controller John Chiang.

There is no dispute about whether strong investment returns will help close the retiree health care funding gap. Legislation by former Assemblyman Dave Elder, D-Long Beach, created a retiree health care fund two decades ago.

But lawmakers chose not to put money in the fund. Now state worker retiree health care is a pay-as-you-go plan, up more than 60 percent in the last five years and costing the state general fund about $1.5 billion in the current fiscal year ending June 30.

Pension and other retirement costs are still a relatively small part of the current state budget, which is expected to spend $87 billion from the general fund and $34 billion from special funds for health, transportation and other programs.

The state is paying CalPERS $3.5 billion ($1.9 billion general fund), retiree health care $1.5 billion, California State Teachers Retirement System $1.3 billion, Social Security $500 million and Medicare $240 million.

In contrast, cities spend most of their budget on personnel, not on a range of programs like the state, and some cities are already overwhelmed. San Jose spends 20 percent of its general fund on retirement, an argument for a pension reform on its June ballot.

The state could have a much bigger pension problem if CalSTRS was properly funded, not to mention retiree health. Officials estimate that CalSTRS needs an additional $3.25 billion a year to be fully funded in 30 years.

Unlike the California Public Employees Retirement System and most public pensions, CalSTRS lacks the power to set annual contribution rates that must be paid by employers, needing legislation instead.

CalSTRS, about 69 percent funded, has been seeking a rate increase for five years. It’s offered legislators a half dozen scenarios that begin to phase in a rate increase in 2016, only one of which is projected to get CalSTRS to 100 percent funding.

The power of CalPERS to give the governor and the Legislature an annual bill that must be paid can be a friction point. In the dispute over paying off part of the new rate increase over 20 years, board members said they were giving lawmakers an option.

To read entire column, click here.

Capitol Alert
The latest on California politics and government
May 16, 2012

A political committee that Service Employees International Union California created to support moderate Republican candidates for the Legislature reported its first expenditure of the 2012 election Wednesday, dropping more than $15,000 on mail pieces opposing Republican Assemblyman Tim Donnelly’s bid for re-election.

Donnelly, a conservative first-term assemblyman known for his vocal opposition to illegal immigration, is facing Republican Bill Jahn, the mayor of Big Bear, and Democrat John Coffey on the June 5 ballot in the 33rd Assembly District.

To read entire story, click here.

By Jon Ortiz
jortiz@sacbee.com
Published: Wednesday, May. 16, 2012 – 12:00 am | Page 1A
Last Modified: Wednesday, May. 16, 2012 – 6:26 am

One day after Gov. Jerry Brown proposed sweeping changes to state government work schedules, many employees were still deciphering what it means for them.

Brown wants to move most of California’s 214,000 workers to four-day workweeks and 9.5-hour shifts starting July 1. The change would reduce state workers’ hours and pay by 5 percent each month and cut state payroll by about $839 million, $401 million of it from the deficit-ridden general fund. Many departments would be closed on Fridays, some on Mondays.

Here are some of the most frequently asked questions from reader emails and comments on sacbee.com:

>So now what?

Marty Morgenstern, the Brown administration’s Labor and Economic Development Agency secretary, said the state will meet with departments and labor union officials to hammer out the particulars.

Look for those talks to heat up immediately, because Brown wants the new arrangements in place in time for the July 1 start of the 2012-13 fiscal year.

>Are the unions going for it?

It’s difficult to make a blanket characterization: A dozen unions represent 181,000 state workers divided into 21 bargaining units who perform thousands of different jobs.

But it’s clear that labor had a hand in shaping the proposal. For example, Brown’s budget also calls for cutting back on outside contracts for services such as janitorial and security work and computer technology consultants.

SEIU Local 1000, the largest state worker union, has argued for years that California pays too much for those kinds of vendor service contracts. Of course, ending that outsourcing would mean more jobs for state employees who are covered by the union.

By giving SEIU what it wants, it raises the likelihood that the 95,000-member union will go along with Brown’s furlough plan and make it harder for the other smaller unions to resist.

>State workers are all under contract right now. Doesn’t this violate those agreements?

Brown says he wants to honor the bargaining process, but that doesn’t mean that the contracts would need to be reopened. The changes could be enacted through short side-letter agreements that focus on the scheduling changes and nothing else.

>How long would the state run on the four-day schedule and cut employees’ pay?

Finance Department spokesman H.D. Palmer said the arrangement “could extend beyond the 2012-13 year.” That’s a detail that the administration needs to hammer out with the unions.

>What leverage does Brown have?

The governor could lay off employees, but that seems a stretch, given that the state already has shed 15,000 positions in 2012-13 and Brown anticipates cutting another 11,000 in the coming fiscal year. The layoff process is cumbersome, too, and Brown needs savings quickly to plug a $15.7 billion deficit.

Brown’s hand could be strengthened if Democratic legislators signal they’re willing to use their authority to circumvent labor contracts and impose pay cuts or furloughs if the unions don’t cooperate.

>Would Democrats really do that to their friends in organized labor?

Under severe budget pressure in 2009, the Legislature erased two paid state holidays and changed overtime rules without the unions’ consent. Nearly two years ago, the threat of legislative action on pension reform prodded labor leaders to compromise with then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

>Would union members vote on the schedule changes? What’s the Legislature’s role?

To read entire story, click here.

BY JEFF HORSEMAN
STAFF WRITER
jhorseman@pe.com

Published: 11 May 2012 12:18 PM

Riverside County and the sheriff’s deputies’ union tentatively agreed Friday on a four-year contract, nearly a year after county supervisors angered the union by imposing pay cuts and pension changes on deputies.

Agreed to early Friday morning, the proposed pact with the Riverside Sheriff’s Association would also scuttle litigation the association filed against the county over alleged unfair labor practices and a pension-related ballot measure, a county news release read.

County Director of Employee Relations Brian McArthur praised the agreement. “When leaders on both sides of the table are committed to being fair — to taxpayers and to county employees — it makes a world of difference in the quality of the outcome,” he said in the May 11 release.

Association board President Robert Masson said the deal was “fair for both sides … It brings us back on track. I think everyone will be happy with it.”

The association’s members need to approve the deal, something Masson expects will happen. The approval process could take several weeks, the county release read.

If approved, the deal would cap an acrimonious period in relations between the county and the union, which represents about 2,500 deputies and other law enforcement personnel.

County officials in May 2011 declared an impasse in contract talks and imposed a 10 percent overall cut in union members’ pay and benefits. At the time, the county expected the cuts would save $28 million; it’s unclear how much was actually saved.

The union sued to block the cuts, saying the county did not follow its own labor-relations rules. The proposed agreement calls for the union to withdraw its legal challenges, including an effort to require voter approval for public safety pension cuts.

That was a key provision of Measure L, passed by voters in 2010. At the same time, voters approved Measure M, a competing measure allowing supervisors to lower public safety pension benefits without voters’ consent. The county contends Measure M is in effect because it got more yes votes than Measure L.

New deputies would get lesser pensions under the proposed deal.

The contract would allow new hires, once they turn 50, to receive an annual pension equal to 2 percent of their salary multiplied by years of service.

For current union members, the formula remains 3 percent of their salaries times years of service once they reach age 50. Members would have to contribute up to 9 percent of their salaries to their pensions by July 13, 2013.

The “two-tiered” pension system is similar to what the county brokered in contracts with other labor unions. Altogether, the new contracts will save the county $550 million in pension costs over the next decade, the county press release read.

In 2010, the county expected annual pension expenses to rise from $155 million to $306 million by fiscal 2019-2020 if no changes were made.

To read entire story, click here.

Government accountability advocate Common Cause is against the a measure aimed at restricting union political fund-raising that goes before California voters in November.

The proposal would stop unions and businesses from donating money directly to political candidates, although both groups could continue spending on independent expenditure campaigns.

The measure also eliminates payroll-deducted contributions, unions’ primary means of raising money from members. Corporations couldn’t use payroll deductions either, but they get the bulk of their political cash from top executives and company funds.

To read entire brief, click here.

Wes Woods II, Staff Writer
Created: 05/09/2012 06:31:07 PM PDT

CLAREMONT – A three-year salary and benefits agreement has been approved between the city and the Claremont Police Officers Association.

The new contract ends months of contentiousness. The city declared negotiations to be at an impasse in late August, and union members on April 11 turned down by a single vote an earlier agreement, forcing additional negotiations.

The agreement, passed in a 3-2 vote at Tuesday night’s City Council meeting, will save the city more than $311,562 over the term of the three-year agreement.

It includes members of the union paying 6 percent of their salaries toward their California Public Employees’ Retirement System benefits through July 7, 2013. From July 8, 2013, to June 30, 2014, most safety employees will pay 9 percent into their retirement benefits.

Police employees will receive a cost-of-living increase for each of the three years and a $400 increase in uniform allowance, said Shawna Urban, personnel manager for the city.

Councilmen Corey Calaycay and Opanyi Nasiali voted against the agreement as they had previously.

“From the moment that we began this cycle of employee contract negotiations it was my position that I was uncomfortable with the across-the-board cost-of-living increases,” Calaycay said. “That’s just my own personal point of view.”

Nasiali said he felt that “all employees should pay their fair share of the pension plan … while it’s getting in the right direction, I’m of the belief this should have been done in the beginning and not gradually as it’s done now.”

To read entire story, click here.

By Jon Ortiz
jortiz@sacbee.com
Published: Thursday, May. 10, 2012 – 12:00 am | Page 1A
Last Modified: Thursday, May. 10, 2012 – 7:29 am

State workers’ pay is back on the budget chopping block.

Officials representing Gov. Jerry Brown met with state employee union leaders last week and delivered the news: A budget revision he’ll release Monday includes a new proposal to cut payroll costs in the upcoming fiscal year.

The decision to take a bite out of state workers’ pay comes amid a deepening California budget deficit that Brown pegged in January at $9.2 billion through 2012-13 but now is thought to be considerably more.

The sources, who declined to talk on the record because the administration asked all involved to keep the budget discussions secret, said Brown’s representatives didn’t outline specific cuts. They said the governor wants to cut payroll costs by at least 5 percent, and asked union leaders to come up with ways to make the reductions.

Brown has the authority to lay off workers, but any other reductions – a pay cut or furloughs, for example – require bargaining or legislation.

Asked about the meetings with labor, Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer said, “The governor has already indicated that more difficult reductions will be required,” because the state’s budget deficit has grown since Brown issued his first budget proposal in January.

“The details of those reductions will be detailed in the May revision,” Palmer said.

Brown is championing a November ballot measure that will ask voters to accept tax increases to relieve pressure on the budget.

If voters reject the proposal, Brown says deeper cuts will be necessary, particularly in school funding. Palmer declined to say whether the state worker pay cuts would be contingent on the outcome of the election.

GOP political strategist Wayne Johnson said that Brown’s decision to propose employee cost cuts is more about “optics” than the fiscal math because, unlike local government budgets, state employees’ pay makes up a relatively small percentage of the $85.9 billion budget that lawmakers passed last year.

Brown has made other moves to demonstrate he’s serious about cost-cutting, including recalling some state employees’ cellphones and reducing the government’s car fleet.

To read entire story, click here.

April 14, 2012 12:00 PM

Natasha Lindstrom, Staff Writer

Just as seven candidates campaign for San Bernardino County 1st District Supervisor, union groups are lobbying for a ballot measure that would slash the pay, perks and staffing budgets of the county’s five supervisors.

The San Bernardino County Elected Officials Pay Reduction Act, dubbed the “Part-time Supervisor” initiative, is a proposed charter amendment that would reduce compensation for supervisors from an average of $271,000 to $60,000 annually, and cut their budgets from a total of $6 million to $250,000 per office. Wrightwood resident Kieran “Red” Brennan, a former grand jury member, authored the measure and San Bernardino County Safety Employees Benefit Association President Laren Leichliter spearheaded its petition drive.

The measure has qualified for the November ballot. However, since the measure qualified after candidates for the 1st, 3rd and 5th districts pulled papers for the June primary, county spokesman David Wert said state law seems to prohibit the compensation changes from impacting whoever takes those positions in December. Instead, they would take effect for the next full term starting in 2016.

The pay reductions also likely couldn’t impact the supervisors who are currently in office, Wert said, though the county is still studying the issue. For the 2nd and 4th districts, the pay cuts would then take effect following the next election in 2014.

The ballot initiative already caused one 1st District candidate to drop out of the race, with Mark Shoup citing potential conflicts with that part-time position and his full-time work as a deputy public defender.

The Daily Press asked the seven candidates still vying for 1st District Supervisor in the June 5 election to weigh in on the ballot measure. Here’s what they had to say:

“This initiative is a poison pill by county employee union bosses who want to transfer power from elected representatives to a select group of unelected employees, which equates to taxation without representation. Two people cannot effectively serve the 1st District, which includes 84 percent of the county’s unincorporated residents. I am not running because I need a job, rather to do a job.” — Russell E. Blewett, Hesperia mayor

•

“We’re a country of laws and process. If the people want part-time supervisors, through legal process, then it should be so. The county will become like many of our cities where the city councils are part-time and the city managers have a large role in the operations of the city. The roles of the supervisors and CEO must be defined.” — Bret Henry, San Bernardino County Fire captain from Victorville

•

“I support the measure, which will cut the pay of county supervisors from $150,000 to $60,000 a year and reduce the board’s annual operating budget by $4.5 million. This is a first step in a larger effort to reform and improve our county, sending a message to voters that business-as-usual is over — giving a shot in the arm for efforts to restore trust in county government.” — Robert Lovingood, Apple Valley resident and president of ICR Staffing Services

•

“I support the measure because it will create positive change regardless of whether or not voters approve its passage. The measure raises some very valid points and spotlights needed change in the structure of the board.

“Regardless of its outcome, I’ll be available to constituents full-time. By working together, we have the opportunity to become the model that others follow.” — Michael Orme, businessman from Oak Hills

•

“I support this measure because when politics becomes a career it opens the door to corruption and influence from special interests. A true public servant is just that, ‘a public servant.’ The measure will effectively weed out those who want to serve themselves rather than serve the residents of this county. I hope other governmental bodies use this as an example.” — Rick Roelle, Apple Valley councilman

•

“My concern is a lack of staff sufficient to handle addressing taxpayer concerns or injustices. Whether it is at a county level or the DMV, it is imperative that we have elected representation, which will stand up and respond to our needs when it is necessary. Supervisors’ salary is excessive. I will serve at the will of the people.” — Bob Smith, retired sheriff’s deputy of Helendale

•

“I support the (measure). In the worst economy since the Great Depression, our leaders need to lead the way in conserving money. We have made cuts to much needed programs (public safety, education, transportation and senior services) and adjusted county employees’ compensation, but the elected officials haven’t adjusted their compensation. Leaders need to lead in all areas and recognize the need for the reduction.” — Jermaine Wright, Adelanto School District trustee

For the latest updates in local political news, follow us on Twitter @DPPolitics.

City editor Brooke Edwards Staggs contributed to this report. Natasha Lindstrom may be reached at (760) 951-6232 or at NLindstrom@VVDailyPress.com.

Get complete stories every day with the “exactly as printed” Daily Press E-edition, only $5 per month! Click here to try it free for 7 days. To subscribe to the Daily Press in print or online, call (760) 241-7755, 1-800-553-2006 or click here.

Wes Woods II
Created: 04/11/2012 06:08:51 PM PDT

CLAREMONT – The police union has rejected a three-year contract offer that had been agreed upon by its leadership and the city.

Detective Rick Varney, the Claremont Police Officers Association president, said he was sorry about the failed agreement.

“I know the community will be upset on whole thing,” Varney said. “I offer my apologies but we are trying to work toward an end to this issue. It’s not that our association members don’t want to pay into their PERS (California Public Employees Retirement System). They do. At this point, we’re trying to find out what they want in addition to what we negotiated to. We know we’re going to pay into our PERS, and we don’t have any issues on that.”

Varney said after its 37 members turned in their votes a single ballot made the difference.

“You always hear in elections my vote doesn’t count … every vote was valuable,” Varney said. “With 19-18, we’re not that far to coming to an agreement. We just need a simple majority.”

Interim Assistant City Manager Colin Tudor said city officials were told about the vote early Wednesday.

Police union and city officials will meet for mediation at 10 a.m. Monday at the state Public Employee Relations Board in Glendale, Varney said.

“The negotiating team will meet at the PERS hearing with our board members,” Varney said. “We’ll see if any headway can be made in that.”

In the tentative agreement turned down by the union rank and file, members would have had to agree to pay the remaining percentage of its pension contribution starting July 8, 2013.

The union would also have withdrawn two legal actions it filed against the city. The actions involve an unfair labor practice allegation and a writ of mandate requesting salary information for several top city officials, including former employees.

Union members will move ahead with legal actions it had planned against the city, union attorney Dieter Dammeier said.

To read entire story, click here.

By Ed Mendel
Monday, April 9, 2012

SANTA ROSA — A two-house legislative committee is working with Gov. Brown’s Department of Finance on a ‘hybrid’ retirement plan for new state and local government hires, a committee member told a forum here last week.

Assemblyman Michael Allen, D-Santa Rosa, twice referred to a “cash balance” plan while talking about a cost-cutting hybrid, proposed by Brown, that combines a lower pension with a 401(k)-style individual investment plan.

At a hearing in February, the committee was briefed on the cash balance plan of the California State Teachers Retirement System, a pension supplement that guarantees a bond-based rate of return on individual investments.

In a typical 401(k)-style plan there is no protection against major investment losses, widespread during a stock market crash in 2008, or a prolonged period of low earnings like some experts predict for the next decade.

A hybrid plan that combines a lower pension with a cash balance plan instead of a 401(k)-style plan could reduce savings for government employers, who would be responsible for covering the gap if earnings fall below the cash balance guarantee.

But protecting workers from the risk of losses in a typical 401(k)-style plan might make a hybrid more acceptable to public employee unions, who have criticized the governor’s hybrid plan at hearings and in news releases.

“We are working on different models to design a plan that will protect the low-paid workers and also be fair to the higher-paid workers,” Allen told the forum. “It’s complex and we are getting a lot of help from the state Department of Finance on this.”

Allen

Brown’s proposal expected the hybrid plan to be developed after the legislation passed. His finance department told a hearing that outside experts would help develop a hybrid plan in about six months, before a Jan. 1, 2013, deadline in the legislation.

The governor’s proposal is a retirement plan that replaces about 75 percent of annual income on the job after a 30-year career, with roughly a third each coming from the smaller pension, the investment plan and federal Social Security.

If the worker is not in Social Security, the pension would be two-thirds of the retirement. A cap on the retirement plan would be based on the Social Security earnings limit, $110,000 this year.

“The whole concept of capping pensions at higher levels is being discussed and probably will be part of the proposal that comes forward,” Allen said.

The assemblyman said the governor’s 12-point pension reform plan is mainly conceptual. Developing legislation for the broad range of California public pension plans is a complicated task, he said, but the committee hopes to issue a proposal in June or July.

“I understand the press believes there has been a long silence on this,” Allen said. “I’ve been advocating for an interim report to let people know what the timelines are, what the expectations are.”

“But we are working on it,” he said. “I do agree when there has been so much controversy and concern on this it would be irresponsible for the Legislature not to respond to the governor’s proposal.”

The six-member committee is scheduled to hold its fourth hearing Friday (April 13) in Chino, this one focusing on county retirement plans. Allen, an attorney, has negotiated labor contracts and served as executive director of SEIU, Local 707.

Asked by an audience member if public pensions are sustainable, Allen said the intent of the governor’s plan is to “inflect a cost curve,” reducing projected government spending on retirement in the future.

“That can be done over a period of time,” he said, “whether done through increased contributions, changing the benefit mix. That’s something we are talking about.”

Allen said the committee also is discussing what some call “intergenerational compacts” and the transfer of debt to future generations through, for example, Social Security or other means. He said the committee wants to strike a balance.

“So what we are trying to do is be fair to the younger generation and also be fair to those who gave their lives in service,” he said.

To read entire column, click here.

L.A. NOW
Southern California — this just in
April 6, 2012 | 4:18 pm

Los Angeles’ top budget official raised the specter of bankruptcy on Friday in a sweeping report in which he called for new taxes, major pension reform and possibly layoffs.

Chief Administrative Officer Miguel Santana said rising employee costs combined with flat-lining revenues have left the city in a precarious position. Even after reducing its workforce by 4,900 positions in recent years, the city faces a $222-million budget shortfall, he said, a number that is expected to rise to $427 million by 2014-15.

“We’re always in crisis mode; we’re always trying to close that shortfall,” Santana said in an interview. Without cuts to the city’s expenditures and gains in its revenue stream, he said, “we’re facing the complete devastation of city services, including public safety.”

Santana says about $150 million in new revenue is needed. Doubling the so-called documentary transfer tax imposed on the sale of property could bring an additional $100 million, he said. Raising the parking tax by 10% to 15% would bring in $40 million. Additional revenue could come from improved collection of parking ticket fees and ambulance billing, he said.

Santana’s report comes just a few weeks before Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is set to release his proposed budget for 2012-13. Last week, Villaraigosa said a “large number” of layoffs might be necessary to eliminate the $220-million deficit.

To read entire story, click here.

Wes Woods II, Staff Writer
Created: 03/30/2012 06:07:44 PM PDT

CLAREMONT – After months of rancor, lawsuits and even some threats, the City Council and the Claremont Police Officers Association have reached a tentative agreement on a 3-year labor contract.

The council is due to vote on the contract at its April 10 meeting, city officials said. The CPOA will present the agreement to its members on Monday.

The negotiations have gone on for months as both sides argued over increased employee pension payments, pay increases and even a dispute over where the union could pass out fliers at the annual Village Venture event.

Mayor Larry Schroeder announced the tentative agreement out of closed session at the regular council meeting this week. He said the vote in closed session was not unanimous but the actual vote was not released.

In the tentative agreement, the CPOA agreed to pay the remaining percentage of its California Public Employees Retirement System contribution starting July 8, 2013 and withdraw the two legal actions it filed against the city.

Union members currently pay 6 percent of the employee PERS contribution and before the end of the contract term will pay the full 8 or 9 percent depending on the employment classification.

City council members, during the length of the contract, agreed to pay union members cost of living adjustments totaling 5 percent.

CPOA president Claremont police Cpl. Rick Varney said the deal was reached after negotiating team members met with city representatives.

He said he did not anticipate the deal collapsing when it is presented to the union membership.

“It’s a formality to have our vote,” Varney said. “The city and our negotiating team worked well together. It’s amazing what you can do without attorneys.”

Schroeder said the agreement allows the council to achieve several long-term goals.

“These are aligning the police union members to be on the same negotiation schedule as other units,” he said, “and all employees will be paying the full amount of their share of PERS contribution by the end of their contracts in June 2014.”

Councilmen Corey Calaycay and Opanyi Nasiali, when reached Friday, declined to discuss the matter because the vote was reached in closed session.

To read entire story, click here.

Capitol Alert
The latest on California politics and government
March 28, 2012

The influential California Teachers Association reported giving $1.5 million today to Gov. Jerry Brown’s effort to raise taxes.

The donation, the single largest yet reported, is a lift for a campaign committee that is racing to collect signatures after Brown and the California Federation of Teachers brokered a deal this month on components of the tax plan.

“I think we have a decent chance to get it passed,” the Democratic governor told a luncheon crowd in Sacramento today. “I’m going to do everything I can.”

To read entire brief, click here.

Dan Walters

By Dan Walters
dwalters@sacbee.com
Published: Monday, Mar. 26, 2012 – 12:00 am | Page 3A
Last Modified: Monday, Mar. 26, 2012 – 6:33 am

California’s great public pension battles are heating up, and may be headed for some kind of political explosion.

The Legislature’s Democratic majority appears to be doing its best to ignore significant pension reform, even though Gov. Jerry Brown says the current system is “unsustainable” and an overhaul is needed to persuade voters to raise taxes this year.

Democrats are reluctant to do anything that public employee unions oppose – such as passing Brown’s 12-point pension reform plan – in a year when they’ll be running in much-changed districts and will need all the union help they can get.

With Brown’s plan stuck in neutral and an outside pension initiative dead for lack of financing, the big action will be in the state’s second- and third-largest cities, San Diego and San Jose, where unions are pulling out all the stops to prevent voters from even seeing pension reform on their ballots this year.

The mayors of both cities, Republican Jerry Sanders in San Diego and Democrat Chuck Reed in San Jose, are sponsoring pension overhaul measures, Sanders via initiative and Reed via City Council action. Unions are trying to keep them off the ballot.

San Diego union leaders filed a complaint with the state Public Employment Relations Board, whose lawyer then asked a judge to block the Sanders-sponsored initiative, contending that it circumvented state law requiring negotiations on compensation changes.

It was a novel legal theory and a judge didn’t buy it, ruling that the proper time to challenge a ballot measure was after voters had acted, not before. And the unions left no doubt they’ll do that if the Sanders measure passes in June.

Meanwhile, unions representing San Jose’s city workers directly filed suit themselves, alleging that placing pension reform on the ballot also violates the state collective bargaining law that Brown signed three-plus decades ago.

To read entire story, click here.

Sunday, March 25, 2012 – 11:50 a.m.

Over a year ago San Bernardino County sued the San Bernardino County Public Attorneys Association over the union using Deputy District Attorneys to represent Deputy Public Defenders in low level grievance and disciplinary matters.

A practice former Public Defender Doreen Boxer didn’t care for.

You see the union represents Deputy District Attorneys, Deputy Public Defenders and Child Support Attorneys and uses its members to act as labor representatives.

Boxer believed the arrangement posed a conflict of interest.

So she enlisted the help of former County Counsel, and crack legal mind, Ruth Stringer to sue the union in order to stop the practice.

Well the initial suit didn’t go well.

A San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge immediately threw out the case and suggested the union seek the recovery of legal fees.

A second judge awarded the union attorneys fees of approximately $75,000.

The Board of Supervisors, acting on more crack legal advice from Stringer, opted for their standard we’ll show you approach, appealed the fee award to Division Two of the California Fourth District Court of Appeal.

A tentative opinion was issued on March 9 and, as usual, it didn’t go well for the county.

The county has now requested oral argument before the appellate justices in advance of the final ruling.

Now the county will likely pay the union trial court costs plus costs on appeal.

An amount likely exceeding $100,000.

Stringer, on the other hand, has departed county service after taking a years worth of vacation leave, and is enjoying her $308,000 a year pension.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 – 09:45 a.m.

An initiative to amend the San Bernardino County charter to reduce the pay, status and staffs of county supervisors is headed to the ballot.

The “Part-Time Pay for Part-Time Work” initiative, a measure backed by county unions, has officially qualified to go before county voters.

The Registrar of Voters is set to make a formal announcement later this morning.

The initiative, if passed, will reduce county supervisors total annual compensation from more than $200,000 to just $60,000.

Aside form the pay cut, the measure will also reduce a supervisor’s individual annual staff budget to $250,000.

The initiative, which is likely to pass in the current political environment, would be the first time county voters would cut elected official compensation.

County unions collected more than 70,000 signatures in a short window to qualify the measure.

An amount equal to more than 163% of the required 43,000 signatures needed.

The ballot box fight is a result of soured relations between the county and employee bargaining Associations over contract concession demands.

The contract for county sheriff’s deputies and district attorney investigators expired last weekend, and the county’s chief executive is demanding steep concessions.

Sources say that bargaining sessions between county management and the San Bernardino County Safety Employees’ Benefit Association (SEBA) have lacked any serious substance.

Monday, March 19, 2012 – 10:00 a.m.

San Bernardino County’s public employee unions, locked in heated collective bargaining battles, continued building their political war chests during the second half of 2011.

Collectively the county’s four main unions amassed $2,340,513.69 as of December 31, 2011.

Here’s the breakdown:

Group                                                          Consolidated Balance
San Bernardino County Safety Employees Benefit Association     $   946,306.72
San Bernardino Public Employees Association                    $   755,500.58
San Bernardino County Public Attorneys Association             $   594,782.39
San Bernardino County Professional Firefighters Local 935      $    43,924.00
Total                                                          $ 2,340,513.69

Wyatt Buchanan,Marisa Lagos
Thursday, March 15, 2012

Sacramento –Gov. Jerry Brown said Wednesday he had struck a deal with supporters of a rival tax initiative to unite behind a new ballot measure that combines elements of both proposals to increase the state sales tax and raise income taxes on the wealthiest Californians.

For weeks, Brown has tried to persuade backers of the so-called millionaires tax – along with supporters of a third competing tax proposal – to hold off on their plans and allow his to be the only tax increase on the November ballot.

The move to combine the millionaires tax, which has polled well, with Brown’s proposal, which attracted some support from businesses, is expected to increase the likelihood of victory at the polls for the new taxes. The governor and his political advisers have warned for months that multiple tax measures on one ballot would lead to defeat for all.

Under the agreement, the governor will combine his efforts with those of the California Federation of Teachers, the Courage Campaign and others who were gathering signatures to get the millionaires tax initiative on the ballot. The new campaign has a short time frame – perhaps as little as a few weeks – to gather the necessary signatures to place the compromise initiative on the ballot.

The governor, meanwhile, will continue signature-gathering for his original plan in case the new measure fails to qualify.

Proposal’s details

The new proposal would increase the sales tax by a quarter of a cent instead of Brown’s proposed half-cent. Personal income tax would go up by one percentage point for individuals making $250,000 a year or couples making $500,000 a year. Individuals making $300,000 a year or couples making $600,000 a year would see an increase of two percentage points. And, individuals making $500,000 and couples making $1 million or more would see a tax hike of three percentage points.

The personal-income-tax increase would last seven years, and the sales-tax increase would expire after four years.

Officials at the Department of Finance project the compromise tax would generate $9 billion in the first year – about $2 billion more than Brown’s original proposal – and $7.1 billion in subsequent years.

Brown was traveling in Southern California Wednesday, but he released a statement saying, “This united effort makes victory more likely and will go a long way toward balancing our budget and protecting our schools, universities and public safety.”

Turning point

Joshua Pechthalt, president of the California Federation of Teachers, said the compromise proposal came about after a strong show of public support for the union’s measure. The millionaires tax had received more support than the governor’s plan in early polling and was a major focus of a rally of thousands of college students at the Capitol last week.

“Last week was probably a significant turning point at least in terms of the governor recognizing that we were committed to being in this race and that there continued to be significant support for our measure,” Pechthalt said, though he conceded that fundraising was becoming more difficult.

It’s unclear what the agreement means for those who have already backed or opposed the different proposals. Some of the state’s most influential business groups – the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Business Roundtable – had taken no position on the governor’s plan but opposed the millionaires tax.

A broad coalition of supporters backed the governor’s plan, including unions, Indian tribes, businesses and others who had donated more than $3.5 million prior to Wednesday’s announcement, the secretary of state said.

County support

To read entire story, click here.

Monday, March 12, 102 – 12:50 p.m.

The San Bernardino Police Officers Association today announced its endorsement of 3rd District County Supervisor Neil Derry.

“Police Officers commend Supervisor Neil Derry for his dedicated and effective leadership in the fight against crime. Supervisor Derry’s support for tougher measures to combat gangs and parolees has helped local Law Enforcement to significantly reduce violent crime,” said Association President Steve Turner.

“San Bernardino Police Officers voted unanimously to endorse Supervisor Neil Derry’s re-election to the County Board,” continued Turner. “His commitment to public safety is making a difference for all the residents of District 3.”

“It is truly humbling to earn the support of San Bernardino Police Officers who are putting their lives on the line every day to protect our families, our homes and our neighborhoods,” declared Derry. “As your Supervisor, I will continue to make public safety protection my top priority.”

A United States Marine and former local City Councilman, Supervisor Neil Derry won election to the Board of Supervisors in 2008 by defeating a longtime entrenched incumbent. During his first term, Neil authored the County’s new sunshine ordinance; cut excessive benefits and perks for county elected officials; and supported the innovative new e-Verify program to combat illegal immigration. Neil and his wife Michelle have one son. They reside in Redlands.

Mike Cruz, Staff Writer
Posted: 03/07/2012 04:53:53 PM PST

More than 73,000 signatures were submitted to the Registrar of Voters on Wednesday to qualify the “Part-Time Pay for Part-Time Work” initiative, which would establish a part-time Board of Supervisors, for the November ballot.

Officially called the San Bernardino County Elected Officials Pay Reduction Act, the initiative only needed about 43,000 signatures to get on the ballot.

The signatures were presented to the registrar by a coalition of San Bernardino County employee unions, Tea Party members and residents, according to a statement from the Safety Employee Benefit Association (SEBA), which represents public safety officers.

“In just 41 days our coalition collected over 57,000 signatures signaling the popularity of this initiative,” Laren Leichliter, SEBA president, said in the statement. Those were added to signatures collected by the initiative’s author, Wrightwood resident Kieran `Red’ Brennan, to push the measure beyond its goal.

Essentially, the initiative amends the county charter to establish a part-time board of supervisors and reduces their pay and perks from an average of $271,000 to $60,000 per year. It reduces their office budgets from $6 million to $1.5 million per year.

Leichliter explained that as cities incorporated and regional agencies were created, many county government functions have been assumed by other entities, resulting in a lesser role for the supervisors. The board met only half the time over the past two years, according to SEBA.

The SEBA president announced in January the union’s push to get the initiative on the November ballot. It occurred the same day the Board of Supervisors directed county counsel to prepare a ballot initiative proposing that any benefit increases for county employees proposed by supervisors be put to a citizen vote.

The unions maintain that any changes to the benefits packages of the employees they represent should be part of the collective bargaining process, not the decision of taxpayers.

The Registrar of Voters has 30 working days to count and verify the estimated 73,459 signatures submitted. Upon verification, the registrar will present the certified results to the Board of Supervisors, said Mike Scarpello, of the Registrar of Voters.

The board must then accept the results and put them on the ballot for the November election, explained county spokesman David Wert.

“It’s the right of the citizens to put measures on the ballot,” said Wert. “But it’s also important for people to understand what this measure really means.”

Wert said the initiative will not create a part-time Board of Supervisors because it contains no language for supervisors to work a certain number of hours.

To read entire story, click here.

Joe Nelson, Staff Writer
Posted: 02/24/2012 08:38:13 PM PST

A petition to slash San Bernardino County supervisors’ jobs to part-time status has roughly 50,000 signatures, and the labor unions pushing the proposal hope to gather 15,000 more before the March 6 filing deadline.

“It’s full speed ahead at this moment,” said Laren Leichliter, president of the San Bernardino County Safety Employees Benefit Association (SEBA). “It’s what the voting public wants, so we’re going to continue forward with it.”

He announced in January the union’s push to get the initiative on the November ballot. It occurred the same day the Board of Supervisors directed county counsel to prepare a ballot initiative proposing that any benefit increases for county employees proposed by supervisors be put to a citizen vote.

The unions maintain that any changes to the benefits packages of the employees they represent should be part of the collective bargaining process, not the decision of taxpayers.

Supervisor Janice Rutherford, who proposed campaign finance reform at the local level in September, believes the actions taken by SEBA and the San Bernardino Public Employees Association (SBPEA) is a power play.

“SEBA is one of the largest donors to campaigns. They like that influence and they don’t want it diminished,” Rutherford said Friday. “Clearly, if you had a part-time Board of Supervisors, the influence of labor groups could be much greater.”

The initiative defines a part-time supervisor as earning $60,000 a year, including all benefits and perks, and who attends a minimum of two board meetings per month. It was originally introduced in August in a package of initiatives proposed by Wrightwood resident Kiernan Brennan.

Brennan also recommended limiting campaign contributions to $1,000 for any candidate running for local office and setting limits on pension benefits for county employees and sworn peace officers by prohibiting any future salary increases from being included in base compensation.

SEBA did not embrace those two initiatives.

“The pension issues are part of the collective bargaining we’re involved in right now. That’s why we didn’t touch that one,” Leichliter said. “Those are the rights we didn’t want to have taken away.”

As to limits on campaign contributions, Leichliter said the union doesn’t want to be muzzled by such restrictions.

“We feel that’s wrong because we’re a big part of the public and we don’t want our voice to be quieted in the political arena,” Leichliter said.

Negotiations between the county and its labor unions have been frosty in recent years in light of the soured economy. The county has been forced to make drastic cuts and take drastic measures to get its unions to play ball.

In December, SEBA’s specialized peace officers bargaining unit, composed of probation corrections officers, deputy coroner investigators and welfare-fraud investigators, agreed to labor terms proposed by an arbitrator, averting a 14-percent cut to their pay and benefits that the county was ready to impose.

But SEBA, the union representing sheriff’s deputies and other public safety officials, and the SBPEA, which represents roughly 11,000 county employees, are biting back. Leichliter says he’s confident all 65,000 signatures will be gathered by the March 6 deadline to file the initiative with the Registrar of Voters.

To read entire story, click here.

Derry

Thursday, February 23, 2012 – 09:30 a.m.

Firefighter groups representing San Bernardino County and City firefighters have awarded their endorsements to San Bernardino County Third District Supervisor Neil Derry.

The Derry campaign announced the endorsements by the San Bernardino County Professional Firefighters Local 935 and San Bernardino City Professional Firefighters in a press release Thursday morning.

Derry is being challenged by San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Chairman, and lifelong democrat, James Ramos.

Campaign finance records, filed with the county, show Ramos’ campaign has received more than eighty-percent of its funding from gambling interests.

Henry

Saturday, February, 18, 2012 – 06:00 p.m.

Another name has entered the already crowded field competing to replace San Bernardino County First District Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt, who is running in the newly created 8th Congressional District.

Bret Henry, President of the San Bernardino County Professional Firefighters Local 935, has entered the race.

Henry should be able to earn a place as a strong contender for the seat.

BY DUANE W. GANG
STAFF WRITER
dgang@pe.com

Published: 15 February 2012 05:59 PM

A federal judge this week ruled against the Service Employees International Union in a lawsuit that claimed the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department retaliated against the union’s chief labor negotiator for her involvement in the organization.

SEIU Local 721 and Wendy Thomas, the chief negotiator and a 911 dispatch supervisor, sued in December 2010, contending department managers transferred her multiple times in two years and began tracking her union activities.

The lawsuit argued that the moves were in retaliation for becoming active in the union and helping other employees file grievances. The lawsuit accused the county of violating Thomas’ First Amendment right to free speech and her equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment.

The county denied the accusations and U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips in Riverside on Monday issued a 52-page ruling in the county’s favor. In July, Phillips had granted the union an injunction against Riverside County, preventing the involuntary transfer of Thomas, while the case worked its way through the court.

To read entire story, click here.

BY ALICIA ROBINSON
STAFF WRITER
arobinson@pe.com

Published: 13 February 2012 07:01 AM

Riverside officials have hammered out a new contract with the city’s police union, the last major employee group to agree to money-saving pension changes.

Police have been working on an expired contract for several years. The new three-year agreement, which the City Council will consider Tuesday, covers about 300 officers. A group of about 50 sergeants and a separate police management group still must negotiate their contract.

The agreement with officers would require new police hires to pay the employee’s share of pension costs, equal to about 9 percent of salary.

That second pension tier for new employees is similar to provisions approved last year by every other city employee group.

Retirement benefits would be calculated on an average of the employee’s three highest years’ salary rather than the single highest year, which officials say blunts the effect of vacation payouts and other one-time benefits that can boost pensions.

Police officers would keep their “3 percent at 50” benefit, which allows them to retire as early as 50 and collect 3 percent of their final salary times the number of years they worked. It’s a common benefit among public safety agencies, but it has been targeted by elected officials worried about looming pension deficits.

In an agreement reached about a year ago, Riverside firefighters consented to bump the retirement age for new employees from 50 to 55.

Riverside police Sgt. Brian Smith, who is president of the officers’ union, said it was especially important to his members to keep the retirement age the same for all employees.

The cost savings of raising retirement age is “really nickels and dimes” compared with having new workers pick up their pension contributions, Smith said.

To read entire story, click here.

Contract talks kicking off this month between the state and four employee unions present Gov. Jerry Brown with a political dilemma: How does he deal fairly with his key labor constituency without exposing himself to charges he’s kowtowing to them?

The 73-year-old Democrat needs labor’s continued backing if he decides to run for another term, but California’s $9.2 billion state budget deficit limits what he can offer at the bargaining table.

Beyond that, Brown wants to put a tax increase before voters in November, but employee contracts that don’t share the fiscal pain would give opponents plenty of ammunition to blast the initiative.

“The governor will say to the unions, ‘You guys have got to give me something or I’ll never get the tax increase,’ ” said Jack Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College.

The unions are coming off several lean budget years that fueled epic battles with Brown’s GOP predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, over their pay and pensions.

Ken Murch, who will negotiate in the coming months for the 7,000-member California Association of Psychiatric Technicians, said that even though Schwarzenegger is long gone, the budget picture remains bleak. He’s not expecting a big payday for his members.

“Jerry Brown is a pragmatist, and he understands the collective bargaining process,” Murch said. “But my clients are not expecting much, to be honest with you.”

The psychiatric technicians union is one of four whose state contracts run through July 1, the first day of the 2012-13 fiscal year. The others represent doctors and dentists, building maintenance workers and health and social service professionals – roughly 24,000 state employees in all.

The state has set a series of public meetings this month and next, during which the unions and the government may publicly disclose their opening contract proposals.

Early on, high-level labor and state officials will hammer out general principles for an agreement and then hand them off to negotiators to bargain the specifics.

The Schwarzenegger years were grim for state labor. Confronted by a series of fiscal shortfalls, the Hollywood star-turned-politician ordered state workers on furlough and twice tried to hold their pay hostage when budget talks broke down. Union executives often complained that he bargained in bad faith.

Schwarzenegger left office last year having parlayed the state’s financial mess into pay and pension concessions from unions representing about two-thirds of the organized state workforce.

Six unions refused to go along. Labor relations were in tatters.

By contrast, Brown signed the 1977 act that unionized the state workforce during his first term as governor. He returned to the Governor’s Office nearly 34 years later with the unions’ strong support and a promise to heal the state’s labor-management rift.

To read entire story, click here.

Riverside County supervisors John Benoit, at left, and Marion Ashley go over their notes during the Jan. 30 hearing on Liberty Quarry in the Riverside Convention Center.(KURT MILLER/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER)

BY DUANE W. GANG AND JEFF HORSEMAN
STAFF WRITERS
dgang@pe.com | jhorseman@pe.com

Published: 11 February 2012 04:03 PM

A political rock-and-a-hard-place scenario faces Riverside County supervisors as they decide the fate of a proposed Temecula-area quarry.

Approve Liberty Quarry, and the five supervisors will anger a wide range of opponents, including a politically active Indian tribe. Deny the open-pit mine, and they risk the wrath of business groups and union members desperate for jobs.

On both sides are voters who traveled by the busload to deliver emotional pleas for and against the project. More than 1,000 attended each hearing, with supporters wearing green and opponents wearing orange.

“These guys have a problem,” UC Riverside political science professor Shaun Bowler said. “This is what democratic politics is about, deciding who you make unhappy. It is one of the components of politics.”

The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday will hold a third special hearing on quarry developer Granite Construction’s appeal of a county Planning Commission decision denying the quarry a surface mining permit and related approvals.

It’s possible, but not guaranteed, that a vote will take place. Planning commissioners needed six hearings and heard nearly 52 hours of public testimony before voting 4-1 against the quarry. So far, supervisors have spent more than 16 hours on the matter.

So far, none of the supervisors has said publicly how he’ll vote. They’ve remained silent during the first two quarry hearings in the Riverside Convention Center.

DUELING EXPERTS

At issue is a quarry sought for a 414-acre site between Temecula’s southern border and the San Diego County line. Using explosives, Granite wants to extract up to 270 million tons of aggregate — tiny rocks used in construction — from a 135-acre portion of the site over 75 years.

Granite and its backers say the quarry will support nearly 300 jobs and generate $300 million in sales tax revenue over the life of the project.

It won’t be noticed by surrounding residents as it provides a much-needed local aggregate source and improves air quality by taking diesel trucks off the road, say supporters, who include five city councils, construction unions and Inland chambers of commerce.

Critics say the quarry would increase truck traffic and air pollution. It would harm local tourism, lower property values and ruin the environment, they argue.

The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians says the quarry would obliterate a sacred tribal site. Other opponents include the Temecula City Council and environmental groups.

To read entire story, click here.

BY DUANE W. GANG
STAFF WRITER
dgang@pe.com

Published: 10 February 2012 05:38 PM

Riverside County has reached a tentative deal with its second-largest union, less than two weeks after Service Employees International Union Local 721 held a one-day strike to push the county back to the bargaining table.

SEIU announced the agreement late Thursday on its website. The tentative deal includes provisions for employees to pay toward their own retirements but also provides step pay and cost-of-living increases for the 5,800 employees represented by the union.

“The County heard your voices and has provided a contract that ensures fairness and dignity for the hard working families of Riverside County,” the union said in announcing the agreement.

SEIU spokeswoman Tracie Morales said Friday that the website announcement would be the union’s only comment. She said a joint statement with the county was planned for next week.

Riverside County Human Resources Director Barbara Olivier also confirmed the deal by email Friday but said the specific cost figures would not be available until Tuesday.

“As with our other agreements, this contract will provide savings in the first two years and then have net costs in the last three,” Olivier said.

The relationship between the county and SEIU had been strained in recent months. The Jan. 31 work stoppage — more than 1,000 employees participated — was the latest escalation between county management and the union, which represents employees ranging from clerks to nurses and social workers.

To read entire story, click here.

PolitiCal
On politics in the Golden State
February 3, 2012 | 11:28 am

Gov. Jerry Brown has courted a coalition of business and labor groups to back his November initiative that would raise taxes on sales and upper incomes. Now, some on the left are lashing out at the governor’s plan, and his early donors, reaffirming their intent to place a competing tax measure on the ballot this fall.

The governor has said repeatedly he wants his initiative to be the only tax-increase proposal before voters in November. But thus far, he has been unable to get some of his fellow Democrats to step aside.

Civil rights attorney Molly Munger continues to fund her proposal to hike income taxes across the board to raise more money for schools. Another initiative backed by the California Federation of Teachers, which would raise taxes on upper incomes exclusively, received new public backing from the California Nurses Assn. this week, and backers of that plan blasted Brown’s proposal in an email to supporters.

To read entire story, click here.